3 ms·

This but unironically. Yes, let's absolutely compare the total lifecycle cost of electric and IC vehicles, and price them accordingly. If you have a politically

This but unironically. Yes, let's absolutely compare the total lifecycle cost of electric and IC vehicles, and price them accordingly. If you have a politically feasible proposal for this, by god, share it share it, the planet depends on it. If not: who cares what "economists already know" about accurate pricing of externalities? The existing zero price for CO2 emissions is wildly off. Say we radically lurch in the opposite direction, setting the price of CO2 much too high (a hilariously sci-fi premise). We foolishly over-develop technologies that mitigate CO2 emissions. What a catastrophe, we learned how to suck CO2 out of the air instead of further refining fracking. We built a better world for nothing!

awakeasleep 8y ago
I agree with your point but find that “oops we built a better world” take really off putting. The “oops” there is “society collapses and is reorganized” and the collapse and reorganization of society is the exact thing we’re trying to avoid.
partiallypro 8y ago
You assume there are no negative externalities to pricing CO2 too high? There would be a lot, including pushing more people into poverty. I don't deny that CO2 has a cost, but the entire premise of the article is that oil is "subsidized" because of CO2 emissions, but that is just bunk. You could argue that about literally every item, ever. From manufacturing to food production, to child bearing, to breathing. If you argue that oil is subsidized because of CO2 emissions, you also have to say so ever -everything- including EV and every point of the supply chain. You might accidentally be causing people to release less CO2 and replace it with something even worse. How you treat CO2 in a cap and trade method is up for debate, but again to claim oil is subsidized though CO2 emissions but EV isn't is nonsense. Lithium mining is -incredibly- dirty, batteries in landfills are -incredibly- toxic/flammable. If you think those too are a form of indirect subsidy then the EV subsidy is already high without the direct subsidy. And if you break it down to which has the biggest subsidy per kilowatt/hour, you might find they are not as far apart as you suspect...but the article doesn't measure that, so how would they know or even have the capability to write such an article?

awakeasleep 8y ago

I agree with your point but find that “oops we built a better world” take really off putting. The “oops” there is “society collapses and is reorganized” and the collapse and reorganization of society is the exact thing we’re trying to avoid.

partiallypro 8y ago

You assume there are no negative externalities to pricing CO2 too high? There would be a lot, including pushing more people into poverty. I don't deny that CO2 has a cost, but the entire premise of the article is that oil is "subsidized" because of CO2 emissions, but that is just bunk. You could argue that about literally every item, ever. From manufacturing to food production, to child bearing, to breathing. If you argue that oil is subsidized because of CO2 emissions, you also have to say so ever -everything- including EV and every point of the supply chain. You might accidentally be causing people to release less CO2 and replace it with something even worse. How you treat CO2 in a cap and trade method is up for debate, but again to claim oil is subsidized though CO2 emissions but EV isn't is nonsense. Lithium mining is -incredibly- dirty, batteries in landfills are -incredibly- toxic/flammable. If you think those too are a form of indirect subsidy then the EV subsidy is already high without the direct subsidy. And if you break it down to which has the biggest subsidy per kilowatt/hour, you might find they are not as far apart as you suspect...but the article doesn't measure that, so how would they know or even have the capability to write such an article?